Reviewer Law 200
1. SSS vs. CA & Conchita Atayde,
G.R. No. 100388, 14 Dec. 2000
TOPIC : Employer-Employee Relationship |Power of Control |
Independent Contractors
Petitioner : SSS
Respondent : Court of Appeals and Conchita Ayalde
FACTS:
In a petition before the Social Security Commission, Margarita Tana alleged
that her husband was, before his demise, an employee of Conchita Ayalde as a
farmhand in the two (2) sugarcane plantations she owned and leased from the
University of the Philippines.
For his labor, Tana allegedly received a regular salary according to the
minimum wage prevailing at the time. She further alleged that throughout the
given period, social security contributions, as well as medicare and employees
compensation premiums were deducted from Tana's wages. It was only after his
death that Margarita discovered that Tana was never reported for coverage, nor
were his contributions/premiums remitted to the Social Security System (SSS).
Consequently, she was deprived of the burial grant and pension benefits
accruing to the heirs of Tana had he been reported for coverage.
The SSS, in a petition-in-intervention, revealed that neither respondents
were registered members-employers of the SSS, nor consequently, Ignacio
Tana, Sr. was never registered as a member-employee. Likewise, SSS records
reflected that there was no way of verifying whether the alleged premium
contributions were remitted since the respondents were not registered
members-employers.
Respondent Ayalde opposed the allegation that Ignacio Tana, Sr. was her
employee, admitting only that he was hired intermittently as an independent
contractor; the Social Security Commission finds that the late Ignacio Tana was
employed by respondent Conchita Ayalde.
The Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondent-appellant
Conchita Ayalde and dismissed the claim of petitioner Margarita Tan.
ISSUE:
Estenzo, DCQ
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation
1) WON an agricultural laborer who was hired on “pakyaw” basis can be
considered an employee entitled to compulsory coverage and corresponding
benefits under Social Security Law. YES.
RULING:
It is a well-settled doctrine that the existence of an employer-
employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. And while it is the
general rule that factual issues are not within the province of the Supreme
Court, said rule is not without exception. In cases, such as this one, where there
are conflicting and contradictory findings of fact, this Court has not hesitated to
scrutinize the records to determine the facts for itself. Our disquisition of the
facts shall be our guide as to whose findings are supported by substantial
evidence.
The mandatory coverage under the SSS Law (Republic Act No. 1161, as
amended by PD 1202 and PD 1636) is premised on the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, and Section 8(d) defines an “employee” as
“any person who performs services for an employer in which either or both
mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such
services where there is an employer-employee relationship.”
The essential elements of an employer-employee relationship are:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) The power of control with regard to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished, with the power of control being the
most determinative factor.
Aylade failed to show complete documents to strengthen her claim that
Tana was not her employee. ence, these documents are not only sadly lacking,
they are also unworthy of credence. The fact that Tana’s name does not appear
in the payrolls for the years 1975, 1976 and part of 1978 and 1979, is no proof
that he did not work in Hda. B70 in the years 1961 to 1974, and the rest of
1978 and 1979. The veracity of the alleged documents as payrolls are doubtful
considering that the laborers named therein never affixed their signatures to
show that they actually received the amounts indicated corresponding to their
names. Moreover, no record was shown pertaining to Hda. B-15-M, where Tana
was supposed to have worked. Even Ayalde admitted that she hired Tana as
“arador” and sometimes as laborer during milling in Hda. B-15-M. In light of her
Page 1 of 2
Reviewer Law 200 Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

incomplete documentary evidence, Ayalde’s denial that Tana was her employee
in Hda. B-70 or Hda. B-15-M must fail.

The Court of Appeals, in finding for Ayalde, relied on the claimant’s and her
witnesses’ admission that her husband was hired as an “arador” on “pakyaw”
basis, but it failed to appreciate the rest of their testimonies. Just because he
was, for short periods of time, hired on “pakyaw” basis does not
necessarily mean that he was not employed to do other tasks for the
remainder of the year. Even Ayalde admitted that Tana did other jobs when
he was not hired to plow. Consequently, the conclusion culled from their
testimonies to the effect that Tana was mainly and solely an “arador” was at
best a selective appreciation of portions of the entire evidence. It was the Social
Security Commission that took into consideration all the documentary and
testimonial evidence on record.

A closer scrutiny of the records, however, reveals that while Ayalde herself
may not have directly imposed on Tana the manner and methods to follow in
performing his tasks, she did exercise control through her overseer. Be that as it
may, the power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is
not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of
duties of the employee; it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the
power. Certainly, Ayalde, on her own or through her overseer, wielded the
power to hire or dismiss, to check on the work, and be it in progress or quality,
of the laborers. As the owner/lessee of the plantations, she possessed the power
to control everyone working therein and everything taking place therein.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
and the Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the
Social Security Commission is REINSTATED.

Estenzo, DCQ Page 2 of 2